I don’t think our culture is “too political.” I just think it’s political aims have all the wrong issues in mind. Example: The Chick-fil-A controversy.
By now most people have heard that the folks in charge of Chick-fil-A don’t like the idea of same-sex marriage. As soon as news of this broke out, liberals scrambled to organize a boycott and conservatives doubled down on their efforts to eat twice as many pickle covered chicken sandwiches.
I find both sides a bit silly. But I think I find the liberal culture a little sillier this time.
Let me get this straight. Fast food chains in this country bust unions, pay sub-living wages, pollute the environment with factory farms, market directly to kids to create obesity, diabetes and other health crises, undermine the food supply and natural agriculture, deny health insurance to employees while raking in obscene profits, contribute to the ugliness of urban sprawl, and have documented records of discrimination against women and minorities in management positions.
I thought we would have been boycotting all these guys for a long time now!
It isn’t like they do anything for us. Their product can hardly be called “food.”
So why is it that there is no controversy until it comes to something related to sex?
This is true in general in our culture. What was the last major controversy? Something to do with birth control.
I am getting a little tired of the culture war when our government is perpetuating real, deadly wars all over the world.
The most likely reason for this is that the culture war of sex controversies is all that really separates the two main political parties in this country. The two parties need the culture war to keep up the illusion that we have a democracy. The ballot might as well look like this:
Republicans: Anti-environment, anti-living wage, pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-universal health care, anti-union, pro-big business, against same sex marriage and abortion.
Democrats: Anti-environment, anti-living wage, pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-universal health care, anti-union, pro-big business, sort of for same sex marriage and legalized abortion.
This is democracy? We are supposed to have some sort of choice?
Now, imagine if all the people boycotting Chick-fil-A got together and organized on some major issue like living wages. Suppose they decided to boycott anyplace not paying a living wage to employees. Imagine what they might accomplish!
Where were these people in 2003 when we could have stopped a war?
Apparently, Americans dying and blowing up tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children isn’t really worth getting excited about. What? Chick-fil-A doesn’t support same sex marriage?! Quick, to the activism cave!
Of course this means that we, the people, and not the power brokers in the two political parties, have to start dictating our priorities. We have to demand a real justice movement which is bigger than the culture war.
Hopefully the Occupy movement is the beginning of such a pro-justice spirit.
For the time being, I can care less what Chick-fil-A thinks about the culture war; I am more concerned with the thousands of documented injuries that take place every year in fast food restaurants that could have been avoided if OSHA regulations were being enforced. That’s why I call for a boycott of all fast food restaurants.
These are some excellent points. You seem to be describing a problem of bandwagon politics, jump on to a side when it gets press play, that is until the next hot issue comes up and then its jump on that bandwagon. This really reminds me of college students who rally to every protest without knowing what they are really protesting against or how to carry out a protest with a chance of making actual change. Both bandwagon and protest rallying make you feel like you are part of a solution, but without having to do any of the hard work of actually working for real change.
Nice points, Dasclump. Thanks for the response
I would file a lot of this under the illusion of choice. Sure, you can choose what you eat or where you eat it, but the idea that your choice, even in concert with others, is consequential is overly deterministic. What activists are asking you to believe is basically the butterfly effect but as applied to economics. It is naively empowering.
If one cares about the conduct and regulation of business, modification of one’s own behavior is fairly ineffectual. One should rather look to the actual power structures, be that government through regulation or government through employee empowerment. People place far too much importance upon caring and not enough importance upon being effectual.
Pingback: On cheap activism and other notes | The rose in the cross